The casual racism in the conspiracy theories forum

Di0genes

I should explain from the outset I'm currently sitting out a month long ban for "implying" another poster is a Nazi on a conspiracy theory forum.

I have followed all the channels and now I feel I am right and justified in raising this to the rest of the community that the conspiracy theory forum is now a breeding ground for the kind of vile racism that would have no place in any other forum on this site, but is apparently protected by the Mods in the Conspiracy theory forum.

In a thread entitled "CNN journalist fired for telling the truth about of the Jews

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056050876

a poster by the name of Brown Bomber Says and I quote

What should be done:
Transparency.

Of course its working on the premise that Jewish people are heavily influential in the media industry in the US

So this poster is suggesting that we need more transparency over which "jews" have jobs in the media.

Now I'm paraphrasing here, but I essentially said something along the lines that would the poster like jews to wear a special badge identifying jews.

Look I'm aware of Godwin's law, and the emotive nature of calling someone a Nazi, but when someone is literally suggesting that Jews clearly identify themselves, something that the Nazis actually introduced in the form of the Nuremberg laws, and I get banned for a month, and this poster receives no kind of public reprimand. Well we're into Alice in Wonderland territory.

To be clear from my understanding of this exchange, it is accordingly to the mods of this forum, perfectly acceptable to suggest Nazi policies, but not okay to infer that the poster is suggesting Nazi esque policies.

Now it's utterly fair to say that I've had my run in with the mods on this forum, but it's been entirely fair to say that this forum has been riddled with casual racism for months now

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056067096

Jewish rabbi gives us the meaning of life

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056056877

Holocaust denialism

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056051079

Who controls Obama? (you'll never guess who "they" are)


The forum is caked with vile abusive racist language, and apparently the forum mods are more interested in defending the rights of posters to spout racist bile, than in challenging the kind of vile language not tolerated in any other soc category.

meglome

I've brought this up myself in a number of the threads in the CT forum. There seems to be barely concealed bigotry by several people. The posters deny that they are bigots and can be clever enough about not making it too blatant all the time.
Now to be fair to the mods an awful lot of the conspiracy's out there do involve one particular religion. So it's very difficult to talk about conspiracy's and not reference this specific religion, in this case Jews. I actually like the mods on the CT forum but I also think we've all become somewhat desensitised to how this religion is portrayed. To be clear about this I'm not a fan of Israel but blaming a specific religion for so much is utter bull and shouldn't be tolerated.

I'm not really sure what can be done about it though. If the discussion is stopped then these opinions may go unchallenged elsewhere.

humanji

That forum is for discussing conspiracies. It just so happens that some people believe that there are Jewish people behind some of them. Everytime this happens, all you need to do is point out all the flaws in their logic, and the conspiracy is demolished. Hurling abuse at them achieves nothing.

In general Boards has rules against racism in posts except where it is appropriate for the content of the forum. And some of the theories discussed in the forum centre around Jewish people, so there's a little lee-way given. When users go overboard then action is taken.

But I don't see how it can been deemed right to suppress someones opinions simply because you don't agree with them. A solid counter-argument will achieve much more. A perfect example was the holocaust denier thread where pretty much every argument for it was torn apart.

Suppression of thought will just lead to people thinking that they were right all along (why else would their opinion be silenced etc). Giving people all the information will allow them to make up their own minds.

humanji

humanji wrote: »

Hurling abuse at them achieves nothing.

When someone accuses a person of being involved in a global conspiracy based solely on their heritage, it's racism. People who hold such opinions are racist.

That's not hurling abuse, humanji. It's a cold hard fact.

humanji

King Mob wrote: »

When someone accuses a person of being involved in a global conspiracy based solely on their heritage, it's racism. People who hold such opinions are racist.

That's not hurling abuse, humanji. It's a cold hard fact.

And it still achieves nothing.

humanji

humanji wrote: »

And it still achieves nothing.

And considering that it's the only argument put forward for the conspiracy at all, how exactly are we to respond?

Di0genes

humanji wrote: »

That forum is for discussing conspiracies. It just so happens that some people believe that there are Jewish people behind some of them. Everytime this happens, all you need to do is point out all the flaws in their logic, and the conspiracy is demolished. Hurling abuse at them achieves nothing.

I'm sorry I did not hurl abuse. The poster in question suggested that there needs to be "transparency" over "the jews that control the media" I suggested that perhaps the poster would care for Jewish entertainers to wear yellow stars.

Apparently it's acceptable to suggest Nazi esque tactics, but not acceptable to point out the poster is demanding something that the Nazis brought in.

Suggesting someone is a Nazi, is an extremely tiresome internet argument, and it means when someone actually suggests something that was brought in the Nurmemburg laws, and when you point out that is quite literally Nazism, you get banned.

Am I wrong here, or is this Alice through the looking glass levels of obtuseness?

In general Boards has rules against racism in posts except where it is appropriate for the content of the forum.

I'm sorry could a admin please clarify if this is true.

And some of the theories discussed in the forum centre around Jewish people, so there's a little lee-way given. When users go overboard then action is taken.

I reported several of Brown Bombers posts. To describe him as anti Jewish would be 100% accurate. He's received no infraction for his actions.

But I don't see how it can been deemed right to suppress someones opinions simply because you don't agree with them.

I'm not suppressing their opinion, I'm just still agog that boards.ie is happy to host a forum where racist language is acceptable!

Suppression of thought will just lead to people thinking that they were right all along (why else would their opinion be silenced etc). Giving people all the information will allow them to make up their own minds.

There's a difference between suppressing thought. No one is saying that, it's just if these people want to come out with their poisonous racist vomit, does boards.ie feel they should provide them with a platform?

You can agree with the premise of freedom of speech, you just aren't obliged to lend the people with reprehensible views your megaphone.

humanji

King Mob wrote: »

And considering that it's the only argument put forward for the conspiracy at all, how exactly are we to respond?

Actually, you'll usually find that they explain why they think that way. They don't just scream that the Jews are evil (well some did and were banned).

And when you read on in these threads you see that rambling racist reasons are torn apart. That is exactly how you respond.

Di0genes wrote: »

I'm sorry I did not hurl abuse. The poster in question suggested that there needs to be "transparency" over "the jews that control the media" I suggested that perhaps the poster would care for Jewish entertainers to wear yellow stars.

You honestly don't get what you said, do you? They were worried about a minority controlling the mass media. It's a conspiracy forum, that's a conspiracy. You were implying that the user wanted the extermination of the Jews. That they were just like the Nazis. You could of said it a thousand different ways without insulting the user.

Di0genes wrote: »

Apparently it's acceptable to suggest Nazi esque tactics, but not acceptable to point out the poster is demanding something that the Nazis brought in.

It's not what you meant, it's how you said it.

Di0genes wrote: »

Suggesting someone is a Nazi, is an extremely tiresome internet argument, and it means when someone actually suggests something that was brought in the Nurmemburg laws, and when you point out that is quite literally Nazism, you get banned.

Again, not why you were banned.

Di0genes wrote: »

Am I wrong here, or is this Alice through the looking glass levels of obtuseness?

You're wrong.

Di0genes wrote: »

I'm sorry could a admin please clarify if this is true.

Not sure where it is, but the actual phrasing is:

You agree NOT to use Boards.ie to:

...
* post any abusive, harmful, vulgar, obscene, sexually explicit, indecent, profane, inappropriate, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable Material, except where the content is appropriate to the content of the forum and you have been granted specific permission to do so and subject to our guidelines on said content
* post Material that contains violence, or offensive subject matter or contains a link to an adult website

Someone might be able to point out where it's actually from. Think it might be the Terms and Conditions.

Di0genes wrote: »

I reported several of Brown Bombers posts. To describe him as anti Jewish would be 100% accurate. He's received no infraction for his actions.

When someone breaks the charter then action is taken. You want him infracted for his opinion?

Di0genes wrote: »

I'm not suppressing their opinion, I'm just still agog that boards.ie is happy to host a forum where racist language is acceptable!

You want them to not be able to voice their opinion. That's suppression.

Di0genes wrote: »

There's a difference between suppressing thought. No one is saying that, it's just if these people want to come out with their poisonous racist vomit, does boards.ie feel they should provide them with a platform?

Why shouldn't they? Should Boards only allow one side of every discussion? Again, just because you don't agree with something doesn't mean it shouldn't be allowed.

Di0genes wrote: »

You can agree with the premise of freedom of speech, you just aren't obliged to lend the people with reprehensible views your megaphone.

Boards is a platform for people to voice opinions. If you've a problem with one such opinion you can ignore it or argue it. On the CT forum, arguing these opinions has proved very successful.

humanji

humanji wrote: »

Actually, you'll usually find that they explain why they think that way. They don't just scream that the Jews are evil (well some did and were banned).

And when you read on in these threads you see that rambling racist reasons are torn apart. That is exactly how you respond.

So we both know it's racism, but we aren't allowed call it for what it is?

Di0genes

humanji wrote: »

You honestly don't get what you said, do you? They were worried about a minority controlling the mass media. It's a conspiracy forum, that's a conspiracy. You were implying that the user wanted the extermination of the Jews.

I said nothing of the sort. The poster suggested he wanted "transparency" over "jews in the media" I asked him how he would like this "transparency to be demonstrated, and suggested that would he like Jews to wear yellow stars.

I said nothing that could be implied that the poster wanted genocide, and strongly resent your slur.

When the Nazis came to power one of their first acts was to insist Jews clearly identify themselves as Jews by wearing a yellow star. And that Jewish Businesses clearly identify themselves as Jewish Businesses. this is EXACTLY WHAT BROWN BOMBER WAS SAYING And I'm sitting out a month long ban because of it.

It's not what you meant, it's how you said it.

Okay so a poster implies jews in the media should be clearly identifiable, I point out that this is something that the Nazis would have done. I get banned.

Again, not why you were banned.

Okay why was I banned because I never called the poster a Nazi, and I never suggested he wanted to exterminate all Jews. I merely pointed out that what he was suggesting echoed Nazi policy.

You're wrong.

Please explain it, a poster can suggest something that was Nazi policy from 1933 onwards, and when someone points out that this was Nazi policy, they get a banning.

How the fúck can you not see the insane levels of double think on display here.

When someone breaks the charter then action is taken. You want him infracted for his opinion?



You want them to not be able to voice their opinion. That's suppression.

Why shouldn't they? Should Boards only allow one side of every discussion? Again, just because you don't agree with something doesn't mean it shouldn't be allowed.

Okay Lets take your position as a given for a moment, Supposing there are sections of the forum where racist language is acceptable, this is an emotive and powerful subject, surely then a relaxation on the moderation of this forum should also be acceptable?

alastair

I'm also banned from the conspiracy forum for a month, and I didn't call anyone a nazi. I called brown bomber a bigot. The only reason I called him a bigot was on the basis of his own posts. I'm not trying to suppress anyone's views - just engage with them in an honest fashion. Walks and talks like a bigot - there shouldn't be any problem with calling them on it.

And yes - the casual assumption that 'them there jews are behind it all' runs through much of what passes for conspiracy 'theories' - quite a flag of convenience for attitudes that would be called out in any other forum.

humanji

King Mob wrote: »

So we both know it's racism, but we aren't allowed call it for what it is?

Right, here's the huge point that you, Di0genes and Alastair are missing:

Take these two statements:
1) You are stupid.
2) You're post is stupid.

No 1 is an insult.
No 2 is a comment on a post.

Can you see the difference? One is against Boards rules. One isn't.

Di0genes wrote: »

I said nothing of the sort. The poster suggested he wanted "transparency" over "jews in the media" I asked him how he would like this "transparency to be demonstrated, and suggested that would he like Jews to wear yellow stars.

I said nothing that could be implied that the poster wanted genocide, and strongly resent your slur.

When the Nazis came to power one of their first acts was to insist Jews clearly identify themselves as Jews by wearing a yellow star. And that Jewish Businesses clearly identify themselves as Jewish Businesses. this is EXACTLY WHAT BROWN BOMBER WAS SAYING And I'm sitting out a month long ban because of it.

So you admit that you comment was refering to the nazis. Can't see what your problem is. Also, if you've a problem with you ban, you take it to the mods then the Cmods, then the Disputes Resolution forum. This isn't the place for it.

Di0genes wrote: »

Okay so a poster implies jews in the media should be clearly identifiable, I point out that this is something that the Nazis would have done. I get banned.

No, what they gave was an opinion about the conspiracy. What you did was to compare that user to the nazis. See how that's an insult? You could have just commented on the actual topic, like you've been told many, many, many times before. But you didn't. You went for the poster instead.

Di0genes wrote: »

Okay why was I banned because I never called the poster a Nazi, and I never suggested he wanted to exterminate all Jews. I merely pointed out that what he was suggesting echoed Nazi policy.

Please explain it, a poster can suggest something that was Nazi policy from 1933 onwards, and when someone points out that this was Nazi policy, they get a banning.

How the fúck can you not see the insane levels of double think on display here.

See above for my explanation, or ask the person who banned you. And keep in mind your constant behavior in the forum and that you had just come back from a two week ban.

Di0genes wrote: »

Okay Lets take your position as a given for a moment, Supposing there are sections of the forum where racist language is acceptable, this is an emotive and powerful subject, surely then a relaxation on the moderation of this forum should also be acceptable?

No. There is a charter for the forum. In it it say that you can't insult a user. So you get punished if you insult a user. It's pretty much that simple.

Why is it so difficult for you to counter the claims that are made? They're fairly easy to show as being nonsense.

alastair wrote: »

I'm also banned from the conspiracy forum for a month, and I didn't call anyone a nazi. I called brown bomber a bigot. The only reason I called him a bigot was on the basis of his own posts. I'm not trying to suppress anyone's views - just engage with them in an honest fashion. Walks and talks like a bigot - there shouldn't be any problem with calling them on it.

Again, my reply to King Mob covers this.

alastair wrote: »

And yes - the casual assumption that 'them there jews are behind it all' runs through much of what passes for conspiracy 'theories' - quite a flag of convenience for attitudes that would be called out in any other forum.

And as I said above, you don't attack the users, you attack the posts. That is what people don't seem to be able to understand.

humanji

humanji wrote: »

Right, here's the huge point that you, Di0genes and Alastair are missing:

Take these two statements:
1) You are stupid.
2) You're post is stupid.

No 1 is an insult.
No 2 is a comment on a post.

But that's a subjective opinion.
A racist is defined as person who holds racist opinions.
Accusing someone of being part of a conspiracy based on their heritage is, as you have agreed, a racist opinion.
It's a fact.

humanji wrote: »

Can you see the difference? One is against Boards rules. One isn't.

And racist comments like the ones in the CT are also against Boards wide rules.
By your own words you are suspending these rules so people can be racist.

humanji

King Mob wrote: »

But that's a subjective opinion.
A racist is defined as person who holds racist opinions.
Accusing someone of being part of a conspiracy based on their heritage is, as you have agreed, a racist opinion.
It's a fact.

Again, attack the post, not the poster.

King Mob wrote: »

And racist comments like the ones in the CT are also against Boards wide rules.
By your own words you are suspending these rules so people can be racist.

* post any abusive, harmful, vulgar, obscene, sexually explicit, indecent, profane, inappropriate, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable Material, except where the content is appropriate to the content of the forum and you have been granted specific permission to do so and subject to our guidelines on said content

I highlighted the important part. The conspiracy was based around the thought that a ethic group are plotting something. That's why it's in the conspiracy theories forum, to discuss this conspiracy.

humanji

humanji wrote: »

Again, attack the post, not the poster.

So we're allowed to say that the opinion is racist, thus inherently mean the poster is racist, but we're not allowed to actually say they are racist.

How exactly does this make sense?

humanji wrote: »

I highlighted the important part. The conspiracy was based around the thought that a ethic group are plotting something. That's why it's in the conspiracy theories forum, to discuss this conspiracy.

Then by the exact same criteria, calling people out as the racists they demonstrably are could also be considered under this exception.

Or maybe I could start a completely made up theory that all conspiracies are set up as a racist ploy?

Seriously humanji there is no reason to allow racists to make their bull**** claims here then give them special protections.

Overheal

Im sorry, but Rick Sanchez was fired for good reason. You can not, under any spark of imagination, get away with saying those things, especially when you plan on directly referring to your superiors at CNN. It's not even like the guy just went on a Jew-bash at Jon Stewart's expense and the CNN Execs then took offense: Sanchez actually pointed a finger at the CNN execs in his radio interview. Thats not something you really want to do when you're on the payroll over at CNN.

This conspiracy theory you guys have cooked up is a farce. Just saying.

copacetic

humanji wrote: »

In general Boards has rules against racism in posts except where it is appropriate for the content of the forum.

Never heard this mentioned before, where is this exception to the rule posted?

Which other forums have the 'racism is appropriate content for this forum' rule?

Mahatma coat

Look, there is a Long standing Conspiracy Theory that a Zionist Cabal is exerting an undue influence over the Media, one of the tricks that this Cabal uses is to accuse anyone who notices this detail of being a Racist.
Seems to be workin for them.

Di0genes

Mahatma coat wrote: »

Look, there is a Long standing Conspiracy Theory that a Zionist Cabal is exerting an undue influence over the Media, one of the tricks that this Cabal uses is to accuse anyone who notices this detail of being a Racist.
Seems to be workin for them.

I really think the defrocked mod who was fired for saying "jews the most despicable race of people on the planet". I'm paraphrasing of course, because you quickly deleted the thread and try to engage in Orwellian Ministry of Love style denial that the thread never happened, really isn't the person who should be trying to defend this forum right now.

Mahatma coat

1) My Previous Modding is irelevant in this discussion
2) Thats not why I was Demodded BTW.
3) That thread is neither Deleted or Locked
http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=58063111

Now Back OT
4) I simply posted A Condensed summary of the Conspiracy Theory that leads to these threads, just to put things in Context for people who do not Frequent the CT Forum

5) Could you try to debate the points, rather than resorting to adHomenims, Like many posters and Mods have suggested in this thread, maybe you would be banned less often.

6)

Di0genes

Mahatma coat wrote: »

1) My Previous Modding is irelevant in this discussion
2) Thats not why I was Demodded BTW.

Oh why were you.

3) That thread is neither Deleted or Locked
http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=58063111

Yeah from your last post

thread closed locked and deleted

You are really bad at this.

Now Back OT
4) I simply posted A Condensed summary of the Conspiracy Theory that leads to these threads, just to put things in Context for people who do not Frequent the CT Forum

Poorly condensed.

5) Could you try to debate the points, rather than resorting to adHomenims, Like many posters and Mods have suggested in this thread, maybe you would be banned less often.

Mahatma your vile racist language, and the vile racist language of other posters on the forum is the point, and the fact that the Mods of CT seem to think they have a unwritten get out clause to allow racist language on this forum.

alastair

humanji wrote: »

Right, here's the huge point that you, Di0genes and Alastair are missing:

Take these two statements:
1) You are stupid.
2) You're post is stupid.

No 1 is an insult.
No 2 is a comment on a post.

Can you see the difference? One is against Boards rules. One isn't. .

Ahh - so if I point out that your post is stupid there's no insult at play? Okaaay.

Taking that logic (?) to a conclusion - If I point out that a post demonstrates active bigotry, then there's no insult or consequent rule broken? Because the post I was banned for pointed out that the repeated (and erroneous) claims presented by brown bomber were (in the absence of any actual facts) the consequence of bigoted tunnel vision. In effect "your claims are bigoted" seems a pretty neat substitute for the seemingly non-insulting "your post is stupid".

Or maybe all this 'angels on the head of a pin' nonsense is simply a distraction from the bizarre penalisation of those who highlight active bigots and racists on this forum?

My name is URL

Di0genes wrote: »

Mahatma your vile racist language, and the vile racist language of other posters on the forum is the point, and the fact that the Mods of CT seem to think they have a unwritten get out clause to allow racist language on this forum.

Calling it racism is stupid. Would the same people be outraged if people were starting threads in relation to Catholic groups controlling vast monopolies? It's just selective interest, many CTs happen to relate to people who happen to be Jewish. It isn't even religious discrimination.

What's your solution to this apparent problem anyway? To ban outrght any mention of Jewish people in theories?

meglome

My name is URL wrote: »

Calling it racism is stupid. Would the same people be outraged if people were starting threads in relation to Catholic groups controlling vast monopolies? It's just selective interest, many CTs happen to relate to people who happen to be Jewish. It isn't even religious discrimination.

What's your solution to this apparent problem anyway? To ban outrght any mention of Jewish people in theories?

The problem is Jewish people make up a tiny percentage of the worlds population but are supposedly involved on 90% of the conspiracy's. It's difficult to explain that without seeing it as bigotry of some kind.

Di0genes

My name is URL wrote: »

Calling it racism is stupid.

No it's pretty much a text book theory of racist conspiracy theories.

Would the same people be outraged if people were starting threads in relation to Catholic groups controlling vast monopolies?

Yes actually I would.

It's just selective interest, many CTs happen to relate to people who happen to be Jewish. It isn't even religious discrimination.

What's your solution to this apparent problem anyway? To ban outrght any mention of Jewish people in theories?

That the conspiracy theories forum align itself more to the overall ethos of boards.ie, see how long some of these users would last coming up with this vile language in after hours, or politics.

My name is URL

meglome wrote: »

The problem is Jewish people make up a tiny percentage of the worlds population but are supposedly involved on 90% of the conspiracy's. It's difficult to explain that without seeing it as bigotry of some kind.

But many positions of power are held by Jewish folk, regardless of them being a minority in terms of world religion. I don't think their religious beliefs come into it for the most part, though only those starting the threads could say for sure. The nature of the CT forum is to question those in control, be it of the financial world or the media one etc. There's no denying that Jewish people have historically had a disproportionate amount of control in various circles given the fact that they do make up such a tiny percentage of the worlds population. I don't think saying that is racist. I don't believe the whole conspiracy which is touted out either, but I can understand why it's such a popular theory.

Di0genes wrote: »

That the conspiracy theories forum align itself more to the overall ethos of boards.ie, see how long some of these users would last coming up with this vile language in after hours, or politics.

What language, specifically? I thought it was just the general idea that so many threads on the subject existed which irked you. I certainly would agree with you about clamping down on racist language, but I honestly haven't come across much racist language in the forum and would imagine that the mods would deal with it accordingly.

Rev Hellfire

Di0genes wrote: »

That the conspiracy theories forum align itself more to the overall ethos of boards.ie, see how long some of these users would last coming up with this vile language in after hours, or politics.

If you dislike the conspiracy theories forum simply don't go there.

alastair

My name is URL wrote: »

... many CTs happen to relate to people who happen to be Jewish. It isn't even religious discrimination.

Just happen to relate to Jews eh?

Strange alright - wonder what happens when you look for a common thread to bind these co-incidences together. It couldn't possibly be discrimination though.

My name is URL

My name is URL wrote: »

Calling it racism is stupid. Would the same people be outraged if people were starting threads in relation to Catholic groups controlling vast monopolies? It's just selective interest, many CTs happen to relate to people who happen to be Jewish. It isn't even religious discrimination.

I certainly would, if the only evidence for the conspiracy is just that they are Catholic.

My name is URL wrote: »

What's your solution to this apparent problem anyway? To ban outrght any mention of Jewish people in theories?

Stopping people from doing just that and forcing them to either provide real evidence or take there racist delusions elsewhere.
Or at the very least enforce the same rules everywhere, like humanji is so insistent about for cases of personal attacks.

And funny thing is we keep asking this very same question about the apparent problem of the Jews and we've yet to see an answer.

My name is URL wrote: »

What language, specifically? I thought it was just the general idea that so many threads on the subject existed which irked you. I certainly would agree with you about clamping down on racist language, but I honestly haven't come across much racist language in the forum and would imagine that the mods would deal with it accordingly.

So you don't see anything even slightly racist with people copy pasting an article that just lists out Jews, no conspiracy mentioned or anything else to connect them, just a list of Jews.
Or how about posting links to sites like "Jewwatch" and "WhiteWorldNews"?
Or how about the usual bollocks of "Jews aren't really a race, so therefore it's not racism."? (Which ironically the above sites would disagree with,distingushing between Jews and Whites.)
Or how about the simple fact that someone actually referred to it as "The Jewish Problem."?

alastair

My name is URL wrote: »

There's no denying that Jewish people have historically had a disproportionate amount of control in various circles given the fact that they do make up such a tiny percentage of the worlds population.

There isn't? Glad that's settled in your own mind at least.

Di0genes

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

If you dislike the conspiracy theories forum simply don't go there.

If the football forum had threads mocking the ethicist of players would that be tolerated. Or how about in the roleplaying forum, if someone started posting links to some depraved Gorean style campaign filled with misanthropic vile rape fantasies would your argument be, "hey don't visit the roleplaying or football forum?

We're told boards.ie is a community, well this community has a sub community that is coming off like boards.ie/stormfront, should the community not actively engage in fixing this?

Di0genes

My name is URL wrote: »

What language, specifically? I thought it was just the general idea that so many threads on the subject existed which irked you. I certainly would agree with you about clamping down on racist language, but I honestly haven't come across much racist language in the forum and would imagine that the mods would deal with it accordingly.

They're not, as pointed out by humanji.

My name is URL

Di0genes wrote: »

If the football forum had threads mocking the ethicist of players would that be tolerated. Or how about in the roleplaying forum, if someone started posting links to some depraved Gorean style campaign filled with misanthropic vile rape fantasies would your argument be, "hey don't visit the roleplaying or football forum?

We're told boards.ie is a community, well this community has a sub community that is coming off like boards.ie/stormfront, should the community not actively engage in fixing this?

Oh come on now.. you're likening someone posting a theory about Jews to posting about rape fantasies? Sorry but that's just emotive claptrap. And comparing the forum to Stormfront is ridiculous.. if there was anything nearly as hateful as what's on Stormfront posted in the CT forum then I would be on your side of this argument. Again, you're attempting to play on emotion rather than reason.

I've never seen you post in the CT forum while in agreement with any theory, and you have gone out of your way to flame the OPs of many threads. So to talk about the 'community' being engaged in fixing the forum is laughable. I suspect that you'd be quite content to see the forum shut down completely.

I'll try to reply to the rest later when I have more time.

Rev Hellfire

Di0genes wrote: »

If the football forum had threads mocking the ethicist of players would that be tolerated. Or how about in the roleplaying forum, if someone started posting links to some depraved Gorean style campaign filled with misanthropic vile rape fantasies would your argument be, "hey don't visit the roleplaying or football forum?

Should someone post such a thing in the roleplaying forum, I would (assuming I felt they where genuine) move their post to the S&S forum and direct them there.

The simple fact is that just because something is not tolerated in one (or the majority) of forums does not imply that it is not tolerated at all.

Di0genes wrote: »

We're told boards.ie is a community, well this community has a sub community that is coming off like boards.ie/stormfront, should the community not actively engage in fixing this?

Boards is a collection of communities, what is a valid viewpoint for one does not have to be valid for another.

Di0genes

My name is URL wrote: »

Oh come on now.. you're likening someone posting a theory about Jews to posting about rape fantasies?

Theres a thread suggesting that the IDF is intentionally creating an army of mind controlled psychopaths.

Sorry but that's just emotive claptrap. And comparing the forum to Stormfront is ridiculous.. if there was anything nearly as hateful as what's on Stormfront posted in the CT forum then I would be on your side of this argument. Again, you're attempting to play on emotion rather than reason.

Jews control the media, the US presidency, the Holohaox all these are active threads in the forum. There's a thread where someone said "The Jews killed Jesus," another where someone calls them the "most discipable (sic) race of people on the planet", posters demanding that Jewish owned media organisations are identified. I'm standing over
my comparison.

I've never seen you post in the CT forum while in agreement with any theory, and you have gone out of your way to flame the OPs of many threads. So to talk about the community being engaged in fixing the forum is laughable. I suspect that you'd be quite content to see the forum shut down completely.

I thought the mark of a good discussion is people who passionately believe in a subject, who hold differing world views. I don't think the forum should be shut down, I think it should be moderated more even handedly.

alastair

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Boards is a collection of communities, what is a valid viewpoint for one does not have to be valid for another.

Well, as has been established in this thread - there's an official acceptance of racist/bigoted posts in the context of the conspiracy forum. That's all well and good if that's the case, but what confused me is why that tolerance doesn't extend to those who highlight such racism/bigotry? It's alright to expound racist opinions, but not to call such opinions racist? And by any any meaningful measure, there no distinction (or degree of insult for that matter) between pointing to the active bigot or the active bigotry.

Rev Hellfire

alastair wrote: »

And by any any meaningful measure, there no distinction (or degree of insult for that matter) between pointing to the active bigot or the active bigotry.

I'll not disagree with you there, but its the culture here to not directly accuse someone of something but rather to do it implicitly through attacking their posts.

But those are the rules so work them, the end result is largely the same.

Di0genes

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Should someone post such a thing in the roleplaying forum, I would (assuming I felt they where genuine) move their post to the S&S forum and direct them there.

They argue that it's a roleplaying game and continue to post there.

The simple fact is that just because something is not tolerated in one (or the majority) of forums does not imply that it is not tolerated at all.

Could you perhaps point me in the direction of another forum on this site that tolerates racist language.

Genuinely curious I'd like to know.

Boards is a collection of communities, what is a valid viewpoint for one does not have to be valid for another.

I'm sorry thats a glib cop out. If there was a call for a paedophilia sub forum in sex and sexuality would the community stand for it? And don't tell that there isn't a campaign to have paedophilia recognised as sexuality ever heard of NAMBLA?

Don't tell me that having a forum on this site where jews are seen as controlling the media, the US presidency, creating psychopathy soldiers, and you just roll your eyes and say "hey we're a melting pot".

And keep in mind, the mods in this forum, aren't just allowing language that would not be tolerated on this forum, but actively banning posters on the forum when their reaction to this racist nonsense is to call it bigotry and racism, saying such language is against the boards.ie terms of service.

Thats just mental.

Rev Hellfire

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

I'll not disagree with you there, but its the culture here to not directly accuse someone of something but rather to do it implicitly through attacking their posts.
But those are the rules so work them, the end result is largely the same.

So what exactly is the difference that makes one acceptable and one not?

Seems a bit silly to hand out month long bans over wording when "the end result is largely the same."
Especially silly when racist bull**** is given special protection.

My name is URL

Di0genes wrote: »

Theres a thread suggesting that the IDF is intentionally creating an army of mind controlled psychopaths

And yet that constitutes racism against the Jews? Suggesting that one of the most questionable armed forces in the world is actively engaged in something.. well, questionable is discrimination against an entire religion? Wow, the bar for what can be described as racism is considerably lower when anything Jewish or Israeli is being discussed

Yitzhak Rabin

Although Humanji has already made it clear, the reason the problems occur, is because you refuse to engage in attacking the post, and instead just attack the poster.

Take for instance your ban Di0genes. Had you said that you disagreed with Brown Bomber, because you think that by calling for transparency, it was leading down a similar road to the Nazi's where Jewish business were forced to identify as such. Instead you just said (paraphrase) "You are a Nazi". You had also picked up an infraction earlier in the thread, so you had fair warning. As for the length of your ban, you were just back from a 2 week ban for a similar offence, so you should have known better.

As for the CT forum allowing for racist language to be used, that is completely untrue. Lets just look at the thread in question. Here are two of the mod warnings:

Humanji wrote:

This isn't a political rally. Phrases like "The Jewish Problem" were fine in Nuremburg, but aren't welcome here.

yekahs wrote:

TMoreno, please refrain from using the phrase "holohoax" from now on. You are welcome to continue to discuss the topic, however that phrase is deeply offensive, inflammatory and insensitive and further use of that word, for which the only purpose is to inflame, will not be tolerated.

So we do not allow racist language to be used. However we do not censor viewpoints we find distasteful. We think that people should be free to air those viewpoints civilly, and in return people should be free to argue against those viewpoints, civilly. In fact I think you'll find that the mods were arguing against the OP from the start. The difference is we didn't resort to attacking the poster, and instead attacked the post, or the article contained in the post. For example:

Humanji wrote:

In fairness, it's pretty much a pile of coincidental, racist ****. The logic is just mental: Jewish people have succeeded in various areas, therefore they are evil and trying to brain wash us. Seriously, that is just a bizarre leap of faith to come to that conclusion.

You'd almost think that the guys who wrote the "article" were some sort of dis-info agents trying to discredit those who speak out against Isreal and the like, because it's just silly.

A robust criticism, that expresses the same viewpoint as yourself, but doesn't attack the poster personally.

Mods aren't the only ones either. I would say more than 2/3rds of the posts were criticising the theory. They all did so in a civil manner. They conveyed the same distaste as you, but crucially, they did so without attacking the poster.

I'm a firm believer in freedom of speech. I think that the only way to fight views you appose is with more speech, not censorship.

yekahs

yekahs wrote: »

I'm a firm believer in freedom of speech. I think that the only way to fight views you appose is with more speech, not censorship.

That'd be great all and Yekahs, but that's not the issue.

On one hand you guys arguing that site wide rules must be strictly enforced in one case then they can be waved in another.
This doesn't make a lick of sense.

Why exactly do racist comments and opinions get special protection?
What other forum on the site offers them the same protection?

alastair

yekahs wrote: »

They all did so in a civil manner. They conveyed the same distaste as you, but crucially, they did so without attacking the poster.

On the basis that calling a racist, a eh, racist is 'insulting or 'uncivil', but calling their views racist is neither? That might wash for some, but to quote Humanji (and to adhere to site guidelines) 'Your post is stupid'.

alastair

yekahs wrote: »

Although Humanji has already made it clear, the reason the problems occur, is because you refuse to engage in attacking the post, and instead just attack the poster.

Personally speaking - I've no problem with attacking the post - problem is once you get to the crux of the matter - the bigoted posters don't care to defend the post - they have carte blanche to fall back on their kneejerk bigotry/racism. BB, for instance, might well play the 'zionist, not jews' veil dance, but his posting history speak for itself/him.

Yitzhak Rabin

King Mob wrote: »

That'd be great all and Yekahs, but that's not the issue.

On one hand you guys arguing that site wide rules must be strictly enforced in one case then they can be waved in another.
This doesn't make a lick of sense.

Why exactly do racist comments and opinions get special protection?
What other forum on the site offers them the same protection?

IMO, it comes down to the subjective nature of what is racist, and the objective nature of attacking a poster.

I think its better to allow discussion and for the reasons for why you believe a viewpoint to be racist to be pointed out, rather than us mods becoming the arbiters of what is and isn't racist.

Say for example, someone claims that for example, the US are controlling the oil industry of Venezuela, and go on to point out the heads of the oil companies in Venezuela are all Americans. The only thing linking the people is that they are Americans? Should we lock that because it is racist against Americans? Or should we allow people point out the plethora of other reasons why Americans would be in charge of the companies, and why it is inconsequential in the first place.

You can replace American with any arbitrary tag you want: Catholic, libertarian, LA Galaxy fan, etc. etc.

Yitzhak Rabin

alastair wrote: »

On the basis that calling a racist, a eh, racist is 'insulting or 'uncivil', but calling their views racist is neither? That might wash for some, but to quote Humanji (and to adhere to site guidelines) 'Your post is stupid'.

Perhaps I should have qualified that better. You should also explain why.

So that theory is racist because......

Yitzhak Rabin

alastair wrote: »

Personally speaking - I've no problem with attacking the post - problem is once you get to the crux of the matter - the bigoted posters don't care to defend the post - they have carte blanche to fall back on their kneejerk bigotry/racism. BB, for instance, might well play the 'zionist, not jews' veil dance, but his posting history speak for itself/him.

Well if you believe that is the case, then you let it speak for itself. No need for you to add your seal of approval and call him a bigot.

yekahs

yekahs wrote: »

IMO, it comes down to the subjective nature of what is racist, and the objective nature of attacking a poster.

I think its better to allow discussion and for the reasons for why you believe a viewpoint to be racist to be pointed out, rather than us mods becoming the arbiters of what is and isn't racist.

Say for example, someone claims that for example, the US are controlling the oil industry of Venezuela, and go on to point out the heads of the oil companies in Venezuela are all Americans. The only thing linking the people is that they are Americans? Should we lock that because it is racist against Americans? Or should we allow people point out the plethora of other reasons why Americans would be in charge of the companies, and why it is inconsequential in the first place.

You can replace American with any arbitrary tag you want: Catholic, libertarian, LA Galaxy fan, etc. etc.

Ok that doesn't answer my questions in the slightest, and the issue I'm having is with obviously racist opinions. I'm talking about the stuff like the things listed here:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=68760430&postcount=29
Both you and humanji have already stated in this and in other threads that you find many of these opinions racist.
If, to use your example, people where just to list off Americans with no other evidence or reason other than the fact that they are American and therefore must be working conspiring together, then that would be unquestionably racist.

And we've already concluded that it's not a matter of opinion if some is a racist when they make clearly racist comments.

So again:
Why exactly do racist comments and opinions get special protection?
What other forum on the site offers them the same protection?

alastair

yekahs wrote: »

Well if you believe that is the case, then you let it speak for itself. No need for you to add your seal of approval and call him a bigot.

Especially where highlighting the active bigot over the active bigotry earns you a month ban, while the bigotry retains a platform. Seems like a reasonable system to me - defend the rights of bigots and wrap the obvious implication of bigoted/racist views in a bogus 'insulting' status.

Di0genes

yekahs wrote: »

Although Humanji has already made it clear, the reason the problems occur, is because you refuse to engage in attacking the post, and instead just attack the poster.

Take for instance your ban Di0genes. Had you said that you disagreed with Brown Bomber, because you think that by calling for transparency, it was leading down a similar road to the Nazi's where Jewish business were forced to identify as such. Instead you just said (paraphrase) "You are a Nazi".

Thats the second time I've been completely misrepresented on this thread, Humanji says I suggested Brown Bomber wanted Genocide, and now you're saying I called him a Nazi.

I said in reaction to BB claim that there should be transparency over jewish media organisation, and I asked him sarcastically how this transparency would be enforced.

Alaistar is similarly banned for pointing out another comment was "bigotry"

Thats not the same as calling someone a "bigot" it's saying that the above comment is textbook bigotry.

You say that the conspiracy theory sub forum has a different standard to the rest of the boards when it comes to racist language. There's two points to address here.

A) Why isn't this put up in bold in the forum charter. I've look at it twice today and there's nothing there. Theres no forum specific charter, and if you're relaxing the conditions on the kind of racist language used on the conspiracy theory forum that would get you banned from any of the soc forums, but is considered acceptable on your domain, why isn't this at the forefront of your personal forum charter.

If you are allowing language that would earn an immediate ban on the grounds that it is racist, on say politics or humanities. Why are you being so incredibly strict on enforcing the civility rules. A poster suggests something that is quite literally part of the Nuremberg laws, and a mod bans someone for pointing out that this is exactly what the Nazis did.

If you're going to relax the rules about racist language on the forum, then you need to have a massive sticky on the forum (as I mentioned you don't have a forum specific charter) and you cannot expect that even if you do allow that the conspiracy theory forum allows language that would not be accepted on other forums, then some leeway must be given.

You had also picked up an infraction earlier in the thread, so you had fair warning.

I'm not complaining about the length of the ban I'm complaining about the inconsistency about the application of bans.

Apparently it's okay for you guys to call something racist but alaistar is sitting out a month long ban for calling something bigotry.

As for the length of your ban, you were just back from a 2 week ban for a similar offence, so you should have known better.

As for the CT forum allowing for racist language to be used, that is completely untrue. Lets just look at the thread in question. Here are two of the mod warnings:

yekahs

yekahs wrote: »

Take for instance your ban Di0genes. Had you said that you disagreed with Brown Bomber, because you think that by calling for transparency, it was leading down a similar road to the Nazi's where Jewish business were forced to identify as such. Instead you just said (paraphrase) "You are a Nazi".

I've just noticed another inconsistency.
Why is what you say Diogenes did is not acceptable but this:

Humanji wrote:

This isn't a political rally. Phrases like "The Jewish Problem" were fine in Nuremburg, but aren't welcome here.

seemingly the exact same sentiment and phrasing, is acceptable?